Kronk wrote:They wouldn't be harder to get if they weren't more desirable. They wouldn't be more desirable unless they were in some way better. hth

Yes. I understand how supply and demand works, but you have attached a very subjective standard now to say that a school is better just because a small percentage of the class is able to get a competitive job over a smaller percentage of another school. It's tough to get an ADA job in Alpine, Texas. If a St. Mary's grad beats out a few UT grads and a Duke grad for it, does that make St. Mary's a better school? If you want to say that NYU is a better school for PI, that's fine. But that is a separate animal from NYU being a better law school. We could take your argument a step further and say that Vermont is NU's peer because they pwn them placing in environmental law.

Just curious, what metric would you like to use? Because NYU has a stronger student body than UVA, a better rated faculty, has placed into BigLaw better than UVA in every year except for one poll in 2009 (and in particular has an edge the more higher a firm is ranked by Vault). NYU also has more firms at OCI, including firms that don't even attend Virginia like WLRK. They also place about 7% more of their class into PI than UVa does, have a far better LRAP, and are ranked fifth as opposed to UVa's 10th. So, once you decide a metric on which to base which school is better, why don't we go from there?

These rankings show that Michigan> Boalt, and before you say that they will likely change next year...these rankings are for AAAS membership, which is for life. I haven't checked the previous rankings but you said it was switched whenever it was last conducted, but this probably means that Boalt lost AAAS faculty members since the last membership rankings were conducted. So unless schools lose faculty or their faculty gain membership, it's probably not going to change.

I find it ironic that you criticize UVA trolls, but you are probably worse.

I think it would be valuable to know what happened to placement statistics during past recessions. It's also interesting most of the T10 have equalized around 50%--firms in this economy could be making offer decisions based on GPA medians more so than where someone went.

echoi wrote:I think it would be valuable to know what happened to placement statistics during past recessions. It's also interesting most of the T10 have equalized around 50%--firms in this economy could be making offer decisions based on GPA medians more so than where someone went.

No, I doubt it.

50% of people actually getting BigLaw typically means those BigLaw firms were dipping well below median, maybe down to top 60% to 75%. And from what I've heard about fall OGI last year, median was hardly a significant cutoff.

There was no calculated, uniform move among BigLaw firms. That'd be absurd. The NLJ250, especially those outside of the V100, are generally in secondary and tertiary markets, and generally have hiring criteria that differ from those of the major market firms.

Finally, these are the numbers for the class of 2009. Considering all the no-offers, I doubt the percentage at each school necessarily tells you much about how people did at certain class ranks.

A little subjective, just as he says my metric is, wouldn't you say? Like--if that is what we consider "good" jobs--we are being pretty subjective with that assertion.

It is somewhat, but the point is that those options are what most of the people on this site are interested in pursuing and according to 2009 data, Mich and UVA placed better for them. Now if you want to argue that we should include "prestigous" PI, because it represents a student getting to do what they want to do, I can buy that to an extent. Of course, separating prestigous from non-prestigous PI would be difficult. But even if we assume something like 8% of NYU grads get those opportunities vs. 2% at MV, you still can't draw the conclusion that NYU placed better in '09.

As for faculty, how much the difference in "quality" between these schools attributes to a student's training as an attorney is debatable and likely difficult to measure. I would imagine there will be diminishing returns at some point.

2009 could be anomalous for many reasons cited by others ITT and I'm not trying to argue that Mich and UVA are better schools based on that. But the prevailing wisdom on this site for awhile seems to have been that NYU is vastly superior "just because" and this limited data set seems to contradict that.

A little subjective, just as he says my metric is, wouldn't you say? Like--if that is what we consider "good" jobs--we are being pretty subjective with that assertion.

It is somewhat, but the point is that those options are what most of the people on this site are interested in pursuing and according to 2009 data, Mich and UVA placed better for them. Now if you want to argue that we should include "prestigous" PI, because it represents a student getting to do what they want to do, I can buy that to an extent. Of course, separating prestigous from non-prestigous PI would be difficult. But even if we assume something like 8% of NYU grads get those opportunities vs. 2% at MV, you still can't draw the conclusion that NYU placed better in '09.

As for faculty, how much the difference in "quality" attributes to a student's training as an attorney is debatable and likely difficult to measure. I would imagine there will be diminishing returns at some point.

2009 could be anomalous for many reasons cited by others ITT and I'm not trying to argue that Mich and UVA are better schools based on that. But the prevailing wisdom on this site for awhile seems to have been that NYU is vastly superior "just because" and this limited data set seems to contradict that.

I don't think it's vastly superior, but it's notably better in a few areas -- elite NYC firms and PI jobs. Those are big categories.

Stringer Bell wrote:2009 could be anomalous for many reasons cited by others ITT and I'm not trying to argue that Mich and UVA are better schools based on that. But the prevailing wisdom on this site for awhile seems to have been that NYU is vastly superior "just because" and this limited data set seems to contradict that.

Pretty sure it is. The idea that the data was anomalous was pretty much the reason I started this flame-off. But as Desert Fox said (who is a future NU 1L): "There has to be something wrong with it because NU is ahead of UChicago and that can't be correct."

I don't think anyone argues NYU is better "just because." There are a large number of factors, including student quality, faculty prominence (I won't say quality if that annoys you), proximity to local markets, number of firms at OCI and the firms that do OCI at NYU but not UM and UVa, LRAP programs, clinical opportunities, etc.

But whatever, I started arguing mostly as a flame but the UVa fanboys have impenetrable defenses. If you want to believe a seat at Virginia gives you as much more as a seat at NYU, that's fine.

Stringer Bell wrote:2009 could be anomalous for many reasons cited by others ITT and I'm not trying to argue that Mich and UVA are better schools based on that. But the prevailing wisdom on this site for awhile seems to have been that NYU is vastly superior "just because" and this limited data set seems to contradict that.

Pretty sure it is. The idea that the data was anomalous was pretty much the reason I started this flame-off. But as Desert Fox said (who is a future NU 1L): "There has to be something wrong with it because NU is ahead of UChicago and that can't be correct."

I don't think anyone argues NYU is better "just because." There are a large number of factors, including student quality, faculty prominence (I won't say quality if that annoys you), proximity to local markets, number of firms at OCI and the firms that do OCI at NYU but not UM and UVa, LRAP programs, clinical opportunities, etc.

But whatever, I started arguing mostly as a flame but the UVa fanboys have impenetrable defenses. If you want to believe a seat at Virginia gives you as much more as a seat at NYU, that's fine.

I think you have to consider PI jobs at least a little bit. In the case of NYU, they take 20 of their strongest students, numbers wise, who get RTK scholarships and take BigLaw off the table, force them to go into PI. That alone helps to account for the 4-5 percent annual BigLaw difference between NYU and Columbia -- and that's a choice, rather than a deficiency, on NYU's part.

scribelaw wrote:I think you have to consider PI jobs at least a little bit. In the case of NYU, they take 20 of their strongest students, numbers wise, who get RTK scholarships and take BigLaw off the table, force them to go into PI. That alone helps to account for the 4-5 percent annual BigLaw difference between NYU and Columbia -- and that's a choice, rather than a deficiency, on NYU's part.

Oh, definitely you have to account for it. The best students at NYU go to Wachtell, Cravath, and PI jobs with the ACLU. And it more than makes up for the small deficiency in biglaw and clerking. It's just that no one on this thread wants to consider that 10% NYU's class (40+ students) do very impressive PI work and could have gone the BigLaw route, thus accounting for and going beyond the discrepancy in UM and UVa's numbers. So I left it out mostly because I knew none of the people I was talking to would care.